Thread by @biblioracle

I've been thinking about the differences between how Conor Friedersdorf and Adam Serwer, both writers at The Atlantic, approached the refusal of tenure for Nikole Hannah-Jones by the UNC Board of Governors. They're good examples to help students see how writers make choices.

First, some disclosures. I think Friedersdorf is one of the lamest public writers on the Internet. Even when I agree with him, I wonder why he bothers writing. He blocks me here because I mocked him for not seeing the similarities between Jordan Petersen and The Secret.

Adam Serwer, on the other hand, is one of the most penetrating observers of America today. His coinage of "The cruelty is the point," in describing the Trumpist Republican Party is cemented in history.

Here's a link to Friedersdorf's piece, which is by and large a fair-enough analysis of NH-J being punished for her political viewpoints, which also serves as his criticism of others who he thinks aren't as fair-minded as he is. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

And here's Serwer's piece, which starts from a similar place as Friedersdorf, but moves to an exploration of the threads of the past that bind with what's happening in the present. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

At their core, the two pieces have different purposes. Friedersdorf has positioned himself to "adjudicate" the question as to whether or not Hannah-Jones had been punished for her political views. He positions himself as an ostensibly objective arbiter of this question.

Friedersdorf has to do some work to establish his objectivity, given the fact that he's feuded with NH-J online and is blocked by her on Twitter, but he assures us he's looking at the situation without animus. As far as the question of what happened to NH-J, I believe him.

However, the pivot Friedersdorf makes following his declaration that the evidence points towards NH-J being discriminated against shows that his objectivity is something of a pose. He uses the rest of the piece to argue that conservatives are disadvantaged on campuses.

Friedersdorf cites a number of relevant, yet also contested studies, that he positions as de-facto proof of this campus discrimination against conservatives. The things he accepts as true and accurate v. those he judges as conditional are inconsistent even in his own piece.

Rhetorically then, Friedersdorf uses his granting of the obvious discrimination against NH-J to try to establish his own credibility on the question of discrimination against conservatives on campuses. The 2nd part of the piece is a non-sequitur to the first.

Friedersdorf wants to be able to position himself as "objective" when examining these questions. If you see him on Twitter ever he's constantly feuding with people who see through his pose, by debating technicalities. It's tedious, and I'm glad he blocks me.

In contrast to F's attempt at "adjudication," Serwer practices what I call "illumination." He takes the treatment of NH-J and contextualizes as part of the larger question around the backlash to the 1619 Project and previous attempts at full histories of Black people in America.

Granted, I am more sympathetic to Serwer's argument than Friedersdorf's, but the more interesting thing to notice is the difference in rhetorical approach. Serwer makes no moves towards establishing himself as "objective."

Serwer and Friedersdorf frame the story similarly, relying on reporting from NC Policy Watch, but Friedersdorf attempts neutral language, while Serwer calls the denial of tenure "extraordinary." Serwer also emphasizes NH-J as "award winning."

Serwer's description of the precipitating incident is in no way slanted on the facts, but it also isn't an attempt at establishing an "objective" persona. He's telling the reader where he stands so we can evaluate what's to come with that knowledge in hand.

When I work with students, I call this work early in an essay "positioning," in that it's the job of the writer to help the audience know where they're coming from on any important/relevant issues the piece might raise.

Friedersdorf positions himself as an "objective adjudicator." Serwer positions himself as an "invested illuminator." My preference is for the latter. I think attempting objectivity as a trap. I prefer fairness, accuracy, transparency as values. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…

I think one of the things that drives people batty about Friedersdorf and his ilk is the sense that they're constantly hiding the ball on what they actually think in order to maintain an image of objectivity because they think it enhances their credibility.

But posing as objective (or even neutral) when you are not objective does not enhance anyone's credibility when it's apparent that you are not objective or neutral. This is why even when I agree with Friedersdorf, I roll my eyes because I know I've been subject to a performance.

I'll take writers like Adam Serwer who will let me know where they stand from the outset any day.

For students, I very much want them attempting to achieve "illumination" over "adjudication." One of my chief objections to schooling is that it only privileges adjudication, and even then, students are required to borrow the opinions of others in that quest.

Why bother writing if it isn't to illuminate? I tell students that they'll know they're illuminating if they're surprised by an something when they're writing. If they're discovering something new for themselves, they're almost surely delivering illumination to the audience.

I promise that Friedersdorf has never been surprised by an idea while he's writing, or if he is, he stamps it out in order to make his previously desired point. He's there to perform his own intelligence and probity, which prevents him from being open and vulnerable.

The failure to be open, fair, transparent in the service of faux objectivity is a disservice to the audience (and the writer as well). It's why I don't teach objectivity in writing. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…

Faux-objectivity as practiced by many of our most prominent public writers is ultimately disrespectful to the audience, not a service to them. It may play well in the insular world of these folks debating each other, but it's no service to the reader or the world.

If this thread on how we approach writing resonates, I got a whole book that helps students work on their writing "practices" in order to become illuminators. penguinrandomhouse.com/books/566892/t…